5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Troitsko-Antropovo, the Moscow Region.
6.  The applicant is a military doctor, with the rank of colonel, in the medical military service. Prior to his criminal prosecution, he was head of the department of dermatology of the hospital of military unit no. 93240 based in the town of Krasnoznamensk, the Moscow Region.
7.  On 22 February 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with the death of one E., whose body had been found on the outskirts of the town of Krasnoznamensk.
8.  At 4 p.m on 1 March 2002 the applicant was arrested in his office by colonel B., head of the Department of the Interior of the town of Krasnoznamensk, on suspicion of involvement in the above-mentioned incident.
9.  Thereafter the applicant was escorted to the Temporary Detention Unit of the Krasnoznamensk Town Department of the Interior and remained there for the next eight hours.
10.  The applicant submitted that colonel B. and officer A. interrogated him for four hours. They allegedly delivered blows to his feet with a rubber truncheon and to his head with a bullet-proof jacket and demanded he confess.
11.  At around 11.30 p.m. a doctor arrived and gave him an injection of what the applicant believed was a “psychoactive drug”. The interrogation then resumed.
12.  The next morning the applicant’s condition had deteriorated and the doctor gave him another injection of the same “psychoactive drug”. It appears that both injections were related to the applicant’s diabetes.
13.  The applicant alleged that he had been transported to a hospital where he was given some medicines in connection with his diabetes and then at once transported back to the Town Department of the Interior.
14.  On 4 March 2002 the applicant’s detention on remand was ordered by investigator D. This order was approved by the prosecutor on the same date.
15.  On the same day a medical report was issued by a doctor, in which the applicant was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The applicant alleged that the ambulance had come six times on that day in connection with his diabetes condition.
16.  On 5 March 2002 the military prosecutor of the Krasnoznamenskiy Garrison K. identified the applicant and two other individuals as suspects in the case. On the same date he questioned the applicant as a suspect in the presence of his counsel.
17.  On 6 March 2002 charges of intentional infliction of serious bodily harm leading to death were brought against the applicant. As of that date he became the accused in that criminal case.
18.  As the applicant’s medical condition deteriorated, on 10 April 2002 the investigator, acting with the consent of the prosecutor, changed the preventive measure applied to the applicant from detention on remand to an undertaking not to leave the hospital in which he would receive his medical treatment for diabetes or his home town of Krasnoznamensk. It was noted specifically that the change was due to the applicant’s poor state of health.
19.  It appears that between 2 and 6 March 2002, except for a stay for a few hours in an unspecified hospital on 2 March 2002 (see paragraph 13), the applicant was held in the Temporary Detention Ward of the Department of the Interior of the Town of Odintsovo of the Moscow Region. He submitted that there had been no proper beds or bedding, that the temperature in the cell had been very low all the time, that there had been no windows to allow fresh air to enter, there had been no proper food and that he had been denied treatment for his diabetes.
20.  It appears that from 6 March to 1 April 2002 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-50/10 located in the town of Mozhaysk, the Moscow Region. According to the applicant, the cells there lacked a separate toilet area, were constantly overcrowded and lacked heating and daylight. Furthermore, he received no treatment for his diabetes.
21.  Between 1 and 10 April 2002 the applicant was apparently held in remand prison IZ-77/2 in the city of Moscow because the authorities wanted him to undergo a psychiatric examination in a specialised clinic in that prison.
22.  According to him, for the first three days in the latter prison he had been denied food, there had been no heating in the cell, the toilet had been out of order, requiring him to use the floor of the cell as a toilet. His cellmates had slept taking three turns per day, there had been no bedding, the cell designed for thirty-five inmates measuring thirty-two square metres had contained eighty people, and there had been no daylight or any possibility of obtaining medicine, even with the assistance of his family.
23.  As indicated above, the applicant was released on 10 April 2002 due to his poor state of health.
24.  On 10 April 2002 the applicant was admitted to a military hospital for treatment of his diabetes.
25.  On 21 April 2002 the applicant apparently left the hospital contrary to the conditions of his release (see paragraph 18 above) and subsequently lived in hiding at friends’ places in Moscow and Krasnoznamensk.
26.  On 6 May 2002, having learned about the applicant’s disappearance, the investigator changed the preventive measure back to detention on remand and ordered that the applicant be searched for, arrested and detained in remand prison IZ-50/10.
27.  The applicant’s name appeared on the fugitives list that same day.
28.  On 24 September 2002 the authorities brought new charges against the applicant. These now included abuse of power through unlawful use of the services of two soldiers for personal purposes during a fight, theft of ID cards and money from the victims of that fight and negligent infliction of death, since following the scuffle the applicant and the two soldiers had transported the victims to a nearby forest and left them there, as a result of which one of them died.
29.  On 26 September 2002 the criminal case was separated into two parts, one relating solely to the applicant and the other relating to the acts of the two soldiers who had been involved in the incident in question.
30.  On 30 September the investigation in the criminal case was suspended pending the search for the applicant; it resumed on 25 October only to be suspended on 30 October 2002 due to the authorities’ inability to locate him.
31.  According to the applicant, on 15 May 2003 he gave himself up to an officer of the Federal Security Service who then passed him on to the police. The Government submitted that the applicant had not given himself up but rather had been arrested by a policeman in the street during an ID check. The applicant was taken into custody and escorted to the temporary detention unit of the police station Odintsovo.
32.  On 16 May 2003 the suspended criminal proceedings were resumed.
33.  On 20 May 2003 the investigator decided to order a comprehensive forensic examination of the applicant’s mental condition in a specialised institution (the Scientific Centre of Social and Forensic Psychiatry, named “the Serbskiy Centre”). The investigator also decided to request the competent court to extend the applicant’s detention on remand until 5 August 2003.
34.  On 3 June 2003 the Krasnoznamenskiy Garrison Military Court (“the Garrison Court”) examined the motion of the investigator and, having heard the applicant in person, extended his detention on remand until 5 August 2003.
35.  The decision of 3 June 2003 was appealed against by the applicant, but later upheld by the Third Circuit Military Court (“the Circuit Court”) on 16 July 2003.
36.  Between 26 June and 22 July 2003 the applicant underwent a medical examination in the Serbskiy Centre. This examination was concluded on the latter date with a final report diagnosing him as suffering from an organic delusionary schizoid disorder. Among other things, the report also mentioned that the applicant was suffering from type 2 diabetes.
37.  On 1 August 2003 the Garrison Court, having heard the applicant and his lawyer, extended the applicant’s detention until 5 October 2003.
38.  On 6 August 2003 the investigator recognised the applicant’s mother as his sole legal guardian and representative for the purposes of the criminal proceedings because the applicant had been diagnosed as mentally ill. It appears that from that moment on, the applicant did not participate in the investigation or the criminal proceedings, with the applicant’s mother and his lawyers replacing him and acting on his behalf.
39.  On 13 August 2003 the Garrison Court, referring to his mental condition, ordered the applicant’s transfer to the psychiatric ward of the clinic in remand prison IZ-77/2. The court took this decision in the presence of the applicant’s mother and one of his lawyers.
40.  On 1 October 2003 the Garrison Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 5 December 2003. The hearing took place with the participation of the applicant’s mother.
41.  The decision of 1 October 2003 was appealed against by the applicant’s defence and was upheld by the Circuit Court on appeal on 17 October 2003. The appeal hearing took place with the participation of his mother and one of his lawyers.
42.  On 12 November 2003 the investigation of the applicant’s criminal case was finalised and it was sent to the Garrison Court for examination on the merits. The investigation concluded that the applicant had committed the crimes in question, whereas he had later become insane, which again excluded holding him criminally liable. The prosecution proposed to relieve the applicant of criminal liability and punishment and to apply a compulsory measure of a medical nature (Article 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure of Russia, see “Relevant Domestic Law” below).
43.  The applicant’s mother and his lawyers were notified of the outcome of the investigation and received a copy of the decision of 12 November 2003 containing, among other things, an attachment, which listed the people to be summoned in person in court. The list included the applicant’s mother and his two lawyers, the victims and their families and various witnesses, but not the applicant himself.
44.  According to the applicant, after his arrest on 15 May 2003 and onwards he was detained in the temporary detention ward of the police station Odintsovo and then in IZ-50/10, IZ-77/1 and IZ-77/2. Throughout this time, the conditions of his detention were consistently dire on account of severe overcrowding of the cells. He also claimed that he had been denied medical treatment on account of his diabetes and that the conditions of his transportation to and from the remand centres had been appalling. The applicant stated that he had been transported on eight occasions, but failed to provide approximate dates of his journeys.
45.  The Government submitted the following information about the dates and locations of the applicant’s detention.
Dates
Facilities
15 May-6 June 2003
Detention units of the Ministry of the Interior
6-16 June 2003
IZ-50/10
16-26 June 2003
IZ-77/2
26 June-24 July 2003
The Serbskiy Centre
24 July 2003-30 October 2003
IZ-77/2
30 October-14 November 2003
IZ-77/1
14 November 2003-28 January 2004
IZ-77/2
28 January 2004-4 December 2005
IZ-50/10
4 December 2005-16 January 2006
IZ-77/2
16 January 2006-8 February 2006
The Serbskiy Centre
8 February 2006-16 February 2006
IZ-77/2
16 February 2006-12 April 2006
IZ-50/10
46.  The Government submitted the following information concerning the detention facilities IZ-50/10, IZ-77/1 and IZ-77/2.
(a)  IZ-50/10
47.  According to the Government, the applicant was held in the following cells:
Cell no.
Surface area in m²
Number of inmates
Dates of detention
322
19
No more than 4
29 January-25 February 2004,
10-16 March 2004
325
17
No more than 4
 
25 February-10 March 2004
 
336
31
No more than 6
16 March-1 December 2004
346
17
No more than 4
1 December 2004-4 December 2005
309
42
No more than 10
As of 16 February 2006
48.  The above data was contained in a certificate of 18 November 2008 no. 51/49-5414 issued by the administration of prison IZ-50/10 and did not refer to original prison documentation. In addition, the Government produced original prison logs in respect of the following five dates, 24 February 2004 (the overall number of detainees in the prison was 396 and the number of inmates in cell 322 was four), 10 March 2004 (the overall number of detainees in the prison was 406 and the number of inmates in cell no. 322 was four), 16 March 2004 (the overall number of detainees in prison was 405 and the number of inmates in cell no. 336 was six), 1 December 2005 (the overall number of detainees was 570 and the number of inmates in cell no. 346 was four) and 18 December 2006 (the overall number of detainees was 552 and the number of inmates in cell no. 309 was ten).
49.  According to the Government, all cells were sufficiently well-lit and aerated. The toilet in all of them was in working order and partitioned from the living area by a wall of a metre and a half high. The cells were centrally heated and regularly disinfected. The applicant received hot food three times a day and also had adequate access to medical assistance. The Government maintained that the applicant had received all the medical aid he required for his diabetes, noting (with reference to a copy of his medical card) that the applicant had asked for it on 25 February and 26 March 2004.
(b)  IZ-77/1
50.  The Government submitted that between 30 October and 14 November 2003 the applicant was held in cell no. 719 of that remand prison, along with three other inmates. The cell measured 20 square metres and was designed for four people. They did not submit the original prison documentation to confirm this information.
51.  According to the Government, the cell was sufficiently well-lit and aerated. The toilet was in working order and partitioned from the living area by a wall of a metre and a half. The cell was centrally heated and regularly disinfected. The applicant received hot food three times a day and also had adequate access to medical assistance. The Government maintained that the applicant had been provided with all the medical aid he required for his diabetes, having mentioned (with reference to a copy of his medical card) that the applicant had refused such treatment on two occasions, once on an unspecified date and once on 4 November 2003.
(c)  IZ-77/2
52.  According to the Government, the applicant was held in the following cells:
Cell no.
Surface area in m²
Number of inmates
Dates of detention
8
80
No more than 20
16-26 June 2003
409
52
No more than 13
24 July-30 October 2003, 14 November 2003-28 January 2004
95
84
No more than 21
10-16 January 2006
159
80
No more than 20
4 December 2005-
10 January 2006
401
84
No more than 35
8-16 February 2006
53.  The above data was contained in a certificate issued by the administration of prison IZ-77/2 and did not refer to original prison documentation. In addition, the Government produced original prison logs in respect of the following four dates, 24 June 2003 (cell no. 8 contained 20 inmates), 10 January 2006 (cell no. 95 contained 21 inmates), 8 December 2005 (cell no. 159 contained 20 inmates), 10 February 2006 (cell no. 401 contained 35 detainees).
54.  According to the Government, all cells were sufficiently well-lit and aerated. The toilet in all of them was in working order and partitioned from the living area by a wall of a metre and a half high. The cells were centrally heated and regularly disinfected and disinfested. The applicant had received hot food three times a day and had also had adequate access to medical assistance. The Government also submitted that the applicant had been provided with all the medical aid he required for his diabetes. The applicant’s medical file shows that he was examined and received medical treatment in therapeutic ward 2 of the prison hospital of remand prison IZ‑77/2. He was diagnosed with chronic diabetes and visited various doctors in this connection. He was regularly provided with medicine and was discharged in a satisfactory condition. The medical file does not refer to any complaint by the applicant about his mental health.
(d)  Conditions of the applicant’s transportation
55.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s description of the conditions of his transportation was erroneous and that he had never complained about such conditions at the domestic level. They were unable to submit any specific information concerning the dates and destinations of the applicant’s journeys because the relevant documents had been destroyed due to the lapse of the statutory time-limit for storage. The Government submitted that the applicant must have been transported in prison vans ZIL‑4331 (measuring 4.7x2.4 metres and designed for 36 inmates), GAZ‑3307 “AZ” and GAZ-3309 “AZ” (measuring 3.8x2.35 metres and designed for 25 inmates).
56.  As indicated above (see paragraph 42), the investigation was finalised on 12 November 2003. On 1 December 2003 the Garrison Court examined the case file received from the prosecution and decided to hold a preliminary hearing in the case on 10 December 2003. The court also ordered that the applicant remain in custody pending the court proceedings.
57.  On 10 December 2003 the Garrison Court held a preliminary hearing in the case and, having perused the charges against the applicant, made various preparations to hear the case. The court noted that the applicant’s interests in the proceedings would be secured by his mother and his two lawyers. By the same decision the court ordered again that the applicant stay in custody pending the proceedings.
58.  On 23 December 2003 the Garrison Court, in the presence of the applicant’s lawyers, examined the charges against him and rendered a judgment in the case. The court established that the applicant had beaten to death a third person, battered another person and had used fake ID documents but had subsequently developed a psychiatric disorder. In view of the above, the court decided to relieve the applicant from criminal liability and, regard being had to his condition and the dangerous nature of the acts he had committed, to apply a “compulsory measure of a medical nature” and commit him to a specialised institution. The court ordered that the applicant stay in detention pending the appeal proceedings.
59.  The applicant’s mother and his lawyers appealed against the judgment of 23 December 2003.
60.  On 30 January 2004 the Garrison Court, acting of its own motion, amended the judgment of 23 December 2003. It acknowledged that its earlier decision ordering that the applicant stay in custody had been erroneous and replaced it with a decision to transfer the applicant to a specialised hospital.
61.  On 17 March 2004 the Circuit Court examined and rejected all of the appeals of the defence against the judgment of 23 December 2003. The applicant was represented in those proceedings by his mother and his lawyers.
62.  The appeal of the defence against the decision of 30 January 2004 was rejected by the Circuit Court on 19 May 2004.
63.  It appears that on an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant’s lawyers requested a judge of the Circuit Court to initiate supervisory review proceedings in respect of the judgment of 23 December 2003, the decision of 30 January 2004 and the appeal decisions of 17 March and 19 May 2004. This request was accepted on 4 May 2005.
64.  On 27 May 2005 the Presidium of the Circuit Court, acting as a supervisory court, examined and quashed all of the above-mentioned decisions in the applicant’s case with reference to the lower courts’ failure to establish the date of the onset of the applicant’s mental condition. The court remitted the case for a fresh examination on the merits at first instance.
65.  On 1 November 2005 the Garrison Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand until 17 December 2005.
66.  On 16 December 2005 the Garrison Court extended his detention until 17 March 2006.
67.  On 13 March 2006 the Garrison Court examined the applicant’s case on the merits in the presence of his mother and his two lawyers. The applicant was partly acquitted because of the lack of evidence of a crime and partly because of the expiry of the statutory time-limits for prosecution. By the same judgment the court decided to apply a “compulsory measure of a medical nature” and commit him to a specialised institution. The court ordered the applicant’s transfer to Psychiatric Clinic no. 5 pending the entry into force of the judgment.
68.  No appeal was submitted against that judgment and on 12 April 2006 he was escorted to Psychiatric Clinic no. 5 for treatment.
69.  On 24 April 2008 the Garrison Court examined the request of Psychiatric Clinic no. 5 and medical examination report no. 119 dated 11 March 2008 recommending the applicant’s release on the grounds that he was in remission and could be treated at home.
70.  The decision to grant the request was not appealed against by the applicant and on 7 May 2008 he was released from the clinic.